Official Post Game Thread- Pats beat the Chargers

[Ring 6]

I disagree. He is what separated them in the early years too. Ty Law has said this many times as has Rodney. The defense was great no doubt but without Brady we are the Ravens from 2000-2008. All those rings came because we had the defense AND a top Qb who was clutch.

We will have to disagree. I’m not denigrating Brady in the least but he was the focal point and the driving force from 07-17 but before and after he did his job, very very well. I’ll put it this way, we win from 01-03 with other QB but we don’t in 14 and 16.
Bb was what made us not the ravens although I think you are talking about replacing Brady with incompetence where im saying replace him with a good QB

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think Brady would be substantially more successful in this offense than he was in 2019. To me the success in the run game has a lot to do with what Cam makes opponents prepare for and all the misdirection that happens presnap and postsnap. But we have been through that three times now.

And, yes, I think what Cam brings to this specific team not only with his abilities but also the portion of the playbook it opens up gives them a better chance to win games than if we had another season of Bradyball targeting Meyers, Harry, Izzo and Moncrief in a crowded middle of the field. It certainly is worth the difference in contract value (1m vs. 25m).

Both QBs have issues that make them limited fits for the current configuration of this offense. I just feel like Cam's floor is higher because all the misdirection on options ect. comes baked in with him on the field. How exactly does Brady's ability to switch to the perfect play and throw to the correct place in the MOF help if most of the receivers are not consistently on the same page with him and those that (i.e. Jules) are seeing double coverage ?

Change up the WRs to a group that runs their concepts as well as Dola or Hogan did and it becomes a different story altogether.

Wow.
Before he was injured Brady was playing as well last year as he is this year.
I posted the stats in another thread but through 12 games this year compared to last year Brady has something like 25 more passing yards. His team has scored 22 more points, which is hardly worth the trade off of 10 more td passes (note again it’s only 22 more points so it’s mostly trading td runs for td passes) and 6 more Ints. last year he was 10-2, this year he is 7-5.
So if you think Brady on this team would resemble the train wreck of an offense we have this year then you must think he and all those weapons in Tampa suck too.

 

[1960Pats]

It’s a stupid argument. You cannot ignore 20 years of success. No coach always wins. All coaches won more with better teams and less with bad teams.
belichick won rings before Brady was a top QB.

Yours is the stupid argument. Nobody is ignoring Bill's 20 years of success. He's the GOAT.
The reason coaches win more with better teams and less with bad teams is because the better teams have better players. You're making my point.

 

[amfootball]

We will have to disagree. I’m not denigrating Brady in the least but he was the focal point and the driving force from 07-17 but before and after he did his job, very very well. I’ll put it this way, we win from 01-03 with other QB but we don’t in 14 and 16.
Bb was what made us not the ravens although I think you are talking about replacing Brady with incompetence where im saying replace him with a good QB

I don't disagree with your first part but this idea that you could just replace Brady and win Super Bowls is pure fantasy. Define "good?" Brady was not good, he was exceptional especially at game managing and clutch play. You don't win 3 of 4 SBs because your QB is good, not when he leads GWDs in all 3 SBs and other playoff comebacks (i.e. snow bowl game).

 

[amfootball]

Yours is the stupid argument. Nobody is ignoring Bill's 20 years of success. He's the GOAT.
The reason coaches win more with better teams and less with bad teams is because the better teams have better players. You're making my point.

Some times though coaches win because Mo Lewis puts a hit on their starting QB and a 6th round pick takes the field and takes a 5-13 team to the SB. That 2001 team was putrid until Brady showed up.

 

[Nunchucks]

I don't think Brady would be substantially more successful in this offense than he was in 2019. To me the success in the run game has a lot to do with what Cam makes opponents prepare for and all the misdirection that happens presnap and postsnap. But we have been through that three times now.

And, yes, I think what Cam brings to this specific team not only with his abilities but also the portion of the playbook it opens up gives them a better chance to win games than if we had another season of Bradyball targeting Meyers, Harry, Izzo and Moncrief in a crowded middle of the field. It certainly is worth the difference in contract value (1m vs. 25m).

Both QBs have issues that make them limited fits for the current configuration of this offense. I just feel like Cam's floor is higher because all the misdirection on options ect. comes baked in with him on the field. How exactly does Brady's ability to switch to the perfect play and throw to the correct place in the MOF help if most of the receivers are not consistently on the same page with him and those that (i.e. Jules) are seeing double coverage ?

Change up the WRs to a group that runs their concepts as well as Dola or Hogan did and it becomes a different story altogether.

You continue to ignore the vastly improved OL and running game. I will certainly agree that Cam has made the running game better, but it was good in 2018 too...this OL is better than the one in 2018 and Harris is a better rb than Michel. Give Tom more time and he will find receivers to throw too. In 2019. He had zero time.

I'll say again, cam is missing open receivers, throwing the ball at people's feet, gets too many balls batted down, and taking bad sacks. Tom simply would not make these mistakes.

 

[Ring 6]

Yours is the stupid argument. Nobody is ignoring Bill's 20 years of success. He's the GOAT.
The reason coaches win more with better teams and less with bad teams is because the better teams have better players. You're making my point.

No I’m making my point. You need both.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't disagree with your first part but this idea that you could just replace Brady and win Super Bowls is pure fantasy. Define "good?" Brady was not good, he was exceptional especially at game managing and clutch play. You don't win 3 of 4 SBs because your QB is good, not when he leads GWDs in all 3 SBs and other playoff comebacks (i.e. snow bowl game).

So you think with any other qb in the world they win none.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

We will have to disagree. I’m not denigrating Brady in the least but he was the focal point and the driving force from 07-17 but before and after he did his job, very very well. I’ll put it this way, we win from 01-03 with other QB but we don’t in 14 and 16.
Bb was what made us not the ravens although I think you are talking about replacing Brady with incompetence where im saying replace him with a good QB

You may be right, but its a tough call . Brady was still very clutch in the early years before becoming goat level in 07. For example if you swapped him for Peyton manning who is an all time great, do we still win the 3 titles 01-04 ? Im leaning towards no, but tough call. I could easily see Peyton folding like a cheap tent at Pittsburgh in 04, or when our defense collapsed against Carolina.

 

[Wax Frog]

@ashley1992 @Ross12 - Is it 8:20 yet? I'm bored! Let's discuss!

 

[amfootball]

So you think with any other qb in the world they win none.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends who the QB is. That is kind of the whole point. We are talking about 3 super bowls in 4 years for a team that was 5-13 before Brady showed up. That 2001 team was going nowhere until Brady stepped on the field. 2003 and 2004 had very good defenses but they were not the 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens. You needed Brady to win those titles with GWDs in each of the SBs. They may have been defensive led teams but Brady's play was so clutch for every single championship that he is just as much of a factor in my view as them.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

12-4 with the same offense but more injuries disagrees.
Bill is clearly the GOAT, but this season proves that he needs players, just like any other HC.

Well yeah, every coach needs players lol. That's just a fact.

However, any other coach with this unit would have less than 6 wins.

 

[amfootball]

Well yeah, every coach needs players lol. That's just a fact.

However, any other coach with this unit would have less than 6 wins.

I don't know about that. A more offensive minded coach probably gets more out of Newton.

 

[Ring 6]

Maybe, maybe not. Depends who the QB is. That is kind of the whole point. We are talking about 3 super bowls in 4 years for a team that was 5-13 before Brady showed up. That 2001 team was going nowhere until Brady stepped on the field. 2003 and 2004 had very good defenses but they were not the 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens. You needed Brady to win those titles with GWDs in each of the SBs. They may have been defensive led teams but Brady's play was so clutch for every single championship that he is just as much of a factor in my view as them.

They won none of them without belichick. Your memory of young Brady seems to be fuzzy.

 

[Ring 6]

12-4 with the same offense but more injuries disagrees.
Bill is clearly the GOAT, but this season proves that he needs players, just like any other HC.

11 of the 12 wins last year were wind with an average qb. The losses on defense hurt more.

 

[amfootball]

They won none of them without belichick. Your memory of young Brady seems to be fuzzy.

You are changing the argument. I never said Bill was not the GOAT HC. You were giving more credit to the defense then to Brady for the early SB wins. Insinuating that he was merely good QB and not a top QB when in fact he was a top QB during those years and insanely clutch especially during those post-season runs. That was the debate we were having. Not Bill.

 

[Ring 6]

You are changing the argument. I never said Bill was not the GOAT HC. You were giving more credit to the defense then to Brady for the early SB wins. Insinuating that he was merely good QB and not a top QB when in fact he was a top QB during those years and insanely clutch especially during those post-season runs. That was the debate we were having. Not Bill.

We disagree.

 

[amfootball]

We disagree.

Obviously.

 

[amfootball]

Well yeah, every coach needs players lol. That's just a fact.

However, any other coach with this unit would have less than 6 wins.

I think Payton gets to 6 wins or maybe more. He just won 3 games with a gadget QB.

 

[Ring 6]

I think Payton gets to 6 wins or maybe more. He just won 3 games with a gadget QB.

You are handing a guy who won 1 Sb 500% more because he won 3 games with a backup QB oh boy.